Skip to main content

When was the last time a Republican won the Presidency without winning Florida ? or without winning Ohio ? or without winning Virginia ?

Test your own historical / political knowledge - guess before reading more

First, I want to point out that this does not mean that it cannot happen.
However, it does indicate that it would be unlikely.
We are only looking at 3 states : Florida, Ohio, and Virginia.

The source for this information is www.270towin.com .

Keeping this in mind, I was fairly confident that it would be a while back for these 3 states. After all, in the last decade, a Republican did not get 270 electoral votes, required to win the Presidency, without winning Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. In 88, George H W Bush won all 3. 76 is out because Carter won. In 72 Nixon dominated the map. In 68, Nixon won all 3. In 64, LBJ won . In 60, JFK won. In 52 and 56, Ike won all 3, he dominated the map also. In 48, Truman won, and prior to that FDR won every election since 1928. In 1928 Hoover the Republican won, but he won all 3.

In 1924, Coolidge, a Republican won, but he did not win Florida or Virginia.
And a Republican is never won the Presidency without winning Ohio. Let me repeat that: A Republican has never won the Presidency without winning Ohio.

Not John Kasich, the Republican governor of Ohio, is remarkably unpopular and his anti union legislation which Willard supported went down in flames, losing by 20 points in this pro union state. The Ohio is economy is better off than other states, manufacturing is doing better in Ohio, and the auto industry has revived in large measure due to President Obama's rescue. All of these factors give President Obama an edge in Ohio.

Play around yourself and find out how long it has been since a Republican won without your own chosen swing state.

www.270towin.com .

www.veepmistakes.com

Will Willard's running mate be Rob Portman, Tim Pawlenty, Marcos Rubio, Kelly Ayotte, Bobby Jindal, or some one else ?

I am now leaning towards Tim Pawlenty . What do you think ?

4:56 PM PT: for those who are giving me such a hard time: what are your states that Willard can win in 2012 that add up to 270 electoral college votes and do not include Ohio or Florida or Virginia.

Please use the website www.270towin.com

and you will see how unrealistic paths to the Presidency for Willard are without Ohio, Virginia, and Florida.

thanks.

6:20 PM PT: to get to 269 if President Obama retains Ohio, Rmoney must win : CO, IN, VA, FL, NV, IA, NC, and MO. And then the Republicans must retain the House of Representatives. Then Rmoney wins the White House.
Or Rmoney must win PA or NM (in addition to the other states above) in order to get past 269 .

Difficult to imagine him winning all of those states.

Poll

Which of the following swing states will POTUS win ?

18%26 votes
2%3 votes
2%4 votes
11%16 votes
26%37 votes
2%4 votes
29%42 votes
2%4 votes
4%6 votes

| 142 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Bush (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming, raboof, Dirtandiron

    Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:05:35 PM PDT

    •  without Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MKSinSA, Judge Moonbox

      then he does not have 270 Electoral College Votes and thus did not win the Presidency. The question is who was the last Republican President who won 270 Electoral votes, became President, but did not win Ohio, Virginia, or Florida, respectively.

      So, if one believes that Bush did not win either Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004, the former has more to recommend it then the latter (since in 2004 Kerry himself conceded), then one believes that Bush did not win 270 electoral college and thus did not win the Presidency. This removes the 2000 and 2004 elections from the possible universe of solutions.

  •  Playing devil's advocate here (0+ / 0-)

    When's the last time a Democrat won without these states either?

    Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

    by MrAnon on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:21:40 PM PDT

    •  long time back for Florida and Virginia. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MrAnon, MKSinSA, Judge Moonbox

      but you can look it up on www.270towin.com .

      hint: william jefferson is the first two names of that President.

      It is 68 for Ohio.

      Hell of a lot sooner than for the Republicans.

      96, 92, and 68.

      •  typo Ohio was 60. not 68. nt. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MKSinSA, Dirtandiron
      •  OK (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dirtandiron

        But Clinton and Johnson (not to mention Carter) were Southern Democrats; although they were social liberals, they were still able to win southern states. The same is not true for Obama.

        Also, 1992, 1996, and 1968 aren't good elections to use comparatively since they had significant third parties running. Remember that Ross Perot beat George Bush in two states in 1992 and Wallace actually won a few states in 1968.

        Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

        by MrAnon on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:31:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then again (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DaleA

          We may see powerful a powerful third party after all in this election with Gary Johnson, who is currently bringing Arizona to swing status and strengthening Obama's lead in New Mexico. If we see his polls peak 15% and he enters into the debates, it will be very difficult to predict the final election map (though safe to say Obama will win, since Johnson takes more votes from Republicans than Democrats).

          Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

          by MrAnon on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:36:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I just am not sanguine as to third parties (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dirtandiron

            success and unfortunately at this time, progressive values would not be well served if the Democratic party were splintered. There are more very conservative ideologues on the right than progressives on the left.

            The 2012 map is more narrow in possibilities than 2008.

            AZ is not flipping.
            CO, PA, NH, VA, OH, NM, IA, NV are all staying with President Obama.
            Florida is a toss up.
            NC is a slightly lean McCain state.
            IN is going back to the Republicans.

            Unless some major event happens or electoral malpractice, then this the only states that we don't really know how they will turn out are Florida and North Carolina.

        •  "the same is not true for obama" wha? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Vote4Obamain2012

          if you mean obama was not a southern democrat, OK. but obama won VA, NC and FL in 2008. presumably, they still count as southern even though he won them.

          •  I meant Obama is not a Southern Democrat (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Vote4Obamain2012

            Look at the differences between the 2000 and 1996 maps and you'll see the difference being a Southern Democrat can make.

            Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

            by MrAnon on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:44:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  for example Carter and Clinton both are (0+ / 0-)

              Southern Democrats - However by 1996 the fact that Clinton had been a Southern Governor did not help him as much in the South.

            •  last i checked, gore was a southern democrat (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Vote4Obamain2012, DaleA

              and a second-generation one at that. again, obama was not a southern democrat, but he won southern states as well (states clinton did not in in 92 or 96). what is interesting is that obama and clinton won in different parts of the south, suggesting that clinton's appeal was sub-regional in nature, among the ozarks and appalachian parts of the south that obama did poorly in. it's not a simple "southern dem = win" dynamic.

    •  Of course (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Khun David, DaleA, Judge Moonbox

      Talking about historical swing states simply doesn't work, since the electoral map has been redefined many times over the last century. Remember as well that during the 19th century, Republicans were the liberals. In fact, until FDR (really Truman), Republicans were also the social liberals in that Calivn Coolidge and Herbert Hoover actually tried to get Civil Rights legislation passed.

      As for the states themselves, population shifts have changed the dynamic several times. Ohio interestingly has always been a swing state, but the same isn't true for Florida and Virginia.

      Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

      by MrAnon on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:27:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  obviously (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Judge Moonbox, MrAnon

        the fact that Republicans have not won the Presidency without winning Ohio does not mean that it is impossible. Nor does it necessarily indicate causation unless supported by a theory that relates the two. However, the correlation is fairly strong 100%. In the modern political era, winning the Industrial midwest through socially conservative and jingoistic messages is connected to the GOP's ability to win the Presidency. This would also be true with Virginia.

        We are well past reconstruction; the Republican party will not win the Presidency without winning Ohio, Virginia, or Florida.

        If we look at the electoral map realistically, then we see how hard it is to come up with a realistic path to 270 without these states. This is the theory that brings us from mere correlation (which by itself is worth taking into account) to causation.

        •  For this year (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Vote4Obamain2012

          Yes, Romney can't win without winning any of the big swing states, which are in this case Virginia, Ohio, and Florida. That I agree. Looking at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/... , we have all the current polls. Since Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado and Iowa are almost certainly going Obama, Romney has to win all three in order to stop Obama from winning.

          Of course, if we want to have some fun, we can do a "best case scenario" and give Obama all of Romney's "lean" states.

          Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

          by MrAnon on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:52:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  When was the last time a Republican won the (3+ / 0-)

    Presidency without stealing the election?

    I'd say 1988.

  •  Interesting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012, Judge Moonbox

    Seems your "hard time" is being generated from a member here for a month with a curious UID. Not that that's a bad thing.

    To look at the source will take me some time, will review and consider your proposition, though on first read of your diary seems plausible.

    Thanks for the homework....

    Somebody said Party! I got excited. I love Parties! Especially Parties with exclamation marks! Now I'm sad because there's not a Party! h/t AnnetteK ;-)

    by EdMass on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:08:40 PM PDT

  •  Tim seems to be the one who is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012

    publicly whoring himself for the gig.

    We'll see if Mitt likes his VP's easy.


    "A recent study reveals Americans' heads are larger than they were 150 years ago but sadly there is no indication that the extra room is used for anything." - entlord

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:04:11 PM PDT

  •  Ohio has been a state longer than (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Judge Moonbox, OHeyeO

    the Republican Party has existed. Ditto Florida, and even more so Virginia (one of the Original 13 Colonies, thankyouverymuch).

    And oh yes: President Obama for the trifecta.

    If it's
    Not your body,
    Then it's
    Not your choice
    And it's
    None of your damn business!

    by TheOtherMaven on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:40:55 PM PDT

  •  Portman (0+ / 0-)

    Rmoney needs to pump up Hamilton County/Cincinnati area voters in order to swing Ohio his way. Not sure it would work, though.

    There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited. The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. - Sun Tzu

    by OHeyeO on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:17:15 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site